| Topic: |
Science > Prophecies-Of-Nostradamus |
| User: |
"=?utf-8?B?RlJJQ0sgeWVhaOKEoiDimaU=?=" |
| Date: |
31 Jan 2006 10:39:34 PM |
| Object: |
Uncle Wally 's World War III Dogalog...........01/02/06 AD (The Year of Our Lord) |
http://www.iraq-war.ru/article/78368
A high-risk game of nuclear chicken
Written by F William Engdahl
Tuesday, 31 January 2006
In the past weeks, media reports have speculated that Washington is
"thinking the unthinkable", namely, an aggressive, preemptive nuclear
bombardment of Iran, by either the United States or Israel, to destroy
or render useless the deep underground Iranian nuclear facilities.
The possibility of war against Iran presents a geostrategic and
geopolitical problem of far more complexity than the bombing and
occupation of Iraq. And Iraq has proved complicated enough for the US.
We try to identify some of the main motives of the main
actors in the new drama and the outlook for possible war.
The dramatis personae include the Bush administration, most especially
the ***** Cheney-led neo-conservative hawks in control now of not only
the Pentagon, but also the Central Intelligence Agency, the UN
ambassadorship and a growing part of the State Department planning
bureaucracy under Condoleezza Rice.
It includes Iran, under the new and outspoken President Mahmud
Ahmadinejad. It includes President Vladimir Putin's Russia, a
nuclear-armed veto member of the UN Security Council. It includes a
nuclear-armed Israel, whose acting premier, Ehud Olmert, recently
declared that Israel could "under no circumstances" allow Iranian
development of nuclear weapons "that can threaten our existence". It
includes the European Union, especially Security Council permanent
member, France, and the weakening President Jacques Chirac. It includes
China, whose dependence on Iranian oil and potentially natural gas is
large.
Each of these actors has differing agendas and different goals, making
the issue of Iran one of the most complex in recent international
politics. What's going on here? Is a nuclear war, with all that implies
for the global financial and political stability, imminent? What are
the possible and even probable outcomes?
The basic facts
First the basic facts as can be verified. The latest act by Ahmadinejad
in announcing the resumption of suspended work on completing a nuclear
fuel enrichment facility along with two other facilities at Natanz,
sounded louder alarm bells outside Iran than his inflammatory
anti-Israel rhetoric earlier, understandably so.
Mohamed ElBaradei, Nobel Peace Prize-winning head of the International
Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), the UN body, has said he is not sure if
that act implies a nuclear weapons program, or whether Iran is merely
determined not to be dependent on outside powers for its own civilian
nuclear fuel cycle. But, he added, the evidence for it is stronger than
that against Saddam Hussein, a rather strong statement by the usually
cautious ElBaradei.
The result of the resumption of research at Natanz appears to have
jelled for the first time a coalition between US and the EU, including
Germany and France, with China and even Russia now joining in urging
Iran to desist. Last August, President George W Bush announced, in
regard to Iran's announced plans to resume enrichment regardless of
international opinion, that "all options are on the table". That
implied in context a nuclear strike on Iranian nuclear sites.
That statement led to a sharp acceleration of EU diplomatic efforts,
led by Britain, Germany and France, the so-called EU-3, to avoid a war.
The three told Washington they were opposed to a military solution.
Since then we are told by German magazine Der Spiegel and others the EU
view has changed, to appear to come closer to the position of the Bush
administration.
It's useful briefly to review the technology of nuclear fuel
enrichment. To prepare uranium for use in a nuclear reactor, it
undergoes the steps of mining and milling, conversion, enrichment and
fuel fabrication. These four steps make up the "front end" of the
nuclear fuel cycle.
After uranium has been used in a reactor to produce electricity it is
known as "spent fuel", and may undergo further steps, including
temporary storage, reprocessing and recycling before eventual disposal
as waste. Collectively these steps are known as the "back end" of the
fuel cycle.
The Natanz facility is part of the "front end" or fuel-preparation
cycle. Ore is first milled into uranium oxide (U3O8), or yellowcake,
then converted into uranium hexaflouride (UF6 ) gas. The uranium
hexaflouride then is sent to an enrichment facility, in this case
Natanz, to produce a mix containing 3-4% of fissile U-235, a
non-weapons-grade nuclear fuel. So far, so good, more or less in terms
of weapons danger.
Iran is especially positioned through geological fortune to possess
large quantities of uranium from mines in Yazd province, permitting
Iran to be self-sufficient in fuel and not having to rely on Russian
fuel or any other foreign imports for that matter. It also has a
facility at Arak which produces heavy water, which is used to moderate
a research reactor whose construction began in 2004.
That reactor will use uranium dioxide and could enable Iran to produce
weapons-grade plutonium, which some nuclear scientists estimate could
produce an amount to build one to two nuclear devices per year. Iran
officially claims the plant is for peaceful medical research. The
peaceful argument here begins to look thinner.
Nuclear enrichment is no small item. You don't build such a facility in
the backyard or the garage. France's large Tricastin enrichment
facility provides fuel for the nuclear electricity grid of Electricite
de France (EDF), as well as for the French nuclear weapons program. It
needs four large nuclear reactors, just to provide more than 3,000MWe
(megawatts electrical) power for it. Early US enrichment plants used
gaseous diffusion. Enrichment plants in the EU and Russia use a more
modern centrifuge process that uses far less energy per unit of
enrichment. The latter or centrifuge process is also the Iranian type.
To make weapons-grade uranium requires more than conventional civilian
electric power-grade uranium fuel. "Unmaking" weapons-grade uranium
today is also a geopolitically interesting process, not irrelevant to
the current dispute over Iran. Since the collapse of the Soviet Union,
under agreements designed to ensure that the Soviet nuclear arsenal
would be converted to peaceful uses, military weapons uranium came on
to the civilian market under a US-Russian agreement.
Today more than half of all the uranium used for electricity in the US
nuclear power plants comes from Russian military stockpiles. Currently,
20% of all electricity produced in the US is nuclear-generated, meaning
that Russian uranium fuels some 10% of all US electricity.
In 1994, a US$12 billion contract was signed between the US Enrichment
Corporation (now USEC Inc) and Russia's Techsnabexport (Tenex) as
agents for the US and Russian governments. USEC agreed to buy a minimum
of 500 tonnes of weapons-grade uranium over 20 years, at a rate of up
to 30 tonnes/year beginning in 1999. The uranium is blended down to
4.4% U-235 in Russia. The USEC then sells it to its US power utility
customers as fuel. In September this program reached its halfway point
of 250 tonnes, or elimination of 10,000 nuclear warheads.
Worldwide, one sixth of the global market of commercial enriched
uranium is supplied by Russia from Russian and other weapons-grade
uranium stocks. Putin has many cards to play in the showdown over
Iran's nuclear program.
The issue of whether Iran was secretly building a nuclear weapon
capability first surfaced from allegations by an Iranian exile
opposition group in 2002.
Natanz has been under the IAEA's purview since suspicions about Iran's
activities surfaced. It was prompted by reports from an Iranian
opposition organization, National Council of Resistance of Iran (NCRI),
and led ElBaradei to tour Iran's nuclear facilities in February 2002,
including the incomplete plant in Natanz about 500 kilometers south of
Tehran.
The NCRI is the political arm of the controversial People's Mujahideen
of Iran, which both the EU and US governments officially brand
terrorist but unofficially work with increasingly against the Tehran
theocracy.
Possible Iranian strategy
It's undeniably clear that Ahmadinejad has a more confrontational
policy than his predecessor. The Iranian ambassador to Vienna, speaking
at a conference in Austria where this author was present last
September, shocked his audience by stating essentially the same line of
confrontational rhetoric: "If it comes to war, Iran is ready ..."
Let's assume that the Western media are correctly reporting the
strident militant speeches of the president. We must also assume that
in that theocratic state, the ruling mullahs, as the most powerful
political institution in Iran, are behind the election of the more
fundamentalist Ahmadinejad. It has been speculated that the aim of the
militancy and defiance of the US and Israel is to revitalize the role
of Iran as the "vanguard" of an anti-Western theocratic Shi'ite
revolution at a time when the mullahs' support internally, and in the
Islamic world, is fading.
Let's also assume Ahmadinejad's actions are quite premeditated, with
the intent to needle and provoke the West for some reason. If pushed
against the wall by growing Western pressures, Ahmadinejad's regime has
apparently calculated that Iran has little to lose if it hit back.
He is also no rogue agent in opposition to the Iranian clergy.
According to the Pakistani newspaper Dawn of January 24, Ayatollah
Ahmad Jannati, secretary of the Guardian Council of the Constitution,
stressed Iran's determination to assert its "inalienable" rights: "We
appreciate President Ahmadinejad because he is following a more
aggressive foreign policy on human rights and nuclear issues than the
former governments of Mohammed Khatami and Hashemi Rafsanjani," the
ayatollah reportedly said. "President Ahmadinejad is asking, 'why only
you Western powers should send inspectors for human rights or nuclear
issues to Iran - we also want to inspect you and report on your
activities'."
The paper's Tehran correspondent added, "The mood within the country's
top leadership remains upbeat and the general belief was that it would
be possible to ride out international sanctions - if it comes to that."
In this situation, some exile Iranians feel it would bolster
Ahmadinejad and the ayatollahs to be handed a new UN sanction
punishment. It could be used to whip up nationalism at home and tighten
their grip on power at a time of waning revolutionary spirit in the
country.
Ahmadinejad has been taking very provocative, and presumably calculated
measures including breaking nuclear-facility seals, and announcing a
major conference that would question evidence that the Nazis conducted
a mass murder of European Jews during World War II. Yet he also has
stressed several times publicly that in accord with strict Islam law,
Iran would never deploy a nuclear device, a weapon of mass destruction,
and that it is only asserting its right as a sovereign nation to an
independent full-cycle civilian nuclear program.
The history of Iran's nuclear efforts should be noted. It began in 1957
when Reza Shah Pahlevi signed a civilian Atoms for Peace agreement with
Dwight D Eisenhower's administration. Iran received a US research
reactor in 1967. Then in 1974 after the first oil shock, the shah
created the Atomic Energy Organization of Iran, explicitly tasked to
develop civilian nuclear power to displace oil, freeing more oil for
export, and for developing a nuclear weapon.
The Bushehr reactor complex of civilian power reactors was begun by
West Germany in the 1970s under the shah, the same time Iran began
buying major shares of key German companies, such as Daimler and Krupp.
After his 1979 ascent to power, Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini ordered all
work on the nuclear program halted, citing Islamic beliefs that weapons
of mass destruction were immoral.
In 1995, the Russian Foreign Ministry signed a contract with the
Iranian government to complete the stalled Bushehr plant, and to supply
it with Russian nuclear fuel, provided Iran agreed to allow IAEA
monitoring and safeguards. According to an article in the March 2004
MERIA Journal, that 1995 Russia-Iran deal included potentially
dangerous transfers of Russian technology, such as laser enrichment
from Yefremov Scientific Research Institute. Iran's initial deal with
Russia in 1995 included a centrifuge plant that would have provided
Iran with fissile material. The plant deal was then canceled at
Washington's insistence.
The monitoring of Bushehr continued until the reports from the NCRI of
secret nuclear weapons facilities in 2002 led to increased pressure on
Iran, above all from Bush, who labeled Iran one of a three-nation "axis
of evil" in his January 2002 State of the Union speech. That was when
the Bush administration was deeply in preparation of regime change in
Iraq, however, and Iran took a back seat, not least as Washington
neo-conservatives such as Ahmad Chalabi had convinced the Pentagon his
ties to Tehran could aid their Iraq agenda.
Since that time, relations between Washington and Tehran have become
less than cordial. Iran has been preparing for what it sees as an
inevitable war with the US. Brigadier General Mohammad-Ali Jaafari,
commander of the Revolutionary Guards, told the official IRNA news
agency on October 9: "As the likely enemy is far more advanced
technologically than we are, we have been using what is called
'asymmetric warfare' methods. We have gone through the necessary
exercises and our forces are now well prepared for this." This
presumably includes terrorist attacks and the use of weapons of mass
destruction and their means of delivery, ballistic missiles.
On January 20, Iran announced it had decided to withdraw investments
from Europe. This was the same week UBS Bank in Zurich announced it was
closing all Iranian accounts. According to US Treasury reports, Iran
has an estimated $103 billion in dollar-denominated assets alone. There
is potential to cause short-term financial distress, though likely
little more should Iran sell all dollar assets abruptly.
What seems clear is that Iran is defiantly going ahead with completion
of an independent nuclear capability and insists it is abiding by all
rules of the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) and the IAEA.
Iran also apparently feels well-prepared to sit out any economic
sanctions. The country is the second-largest Organization of Petroleum
Exporting Countries (OPEC) oil producer (4.1 million barrels per day in
2005) next to Saudi Arabia (9.1 million.) Russia with 9.5 million bpd
production in 2005 takes claim to being the world's largest
oil-producing country.
Iran has also accumulated a strong cash position from the recent high
oil price, earning some $45 billion in oil revenue in 2005, double the
average for 2001-03. This gives it a war chest cushion against external
sanctions and the possibility to live for months with cutting its oil
exports, all or partly. That is clearly one of the implicit weapons
Iran knows it holds and would clearly use in event the situation
escalated into UN Security Council economic sanctions.
In today's ultra-tight oil supply market, with OPEC producing at full
capacity, there would be no margin to replace 4 million Iranian barrels
a day. A price shock level of $130 to $150 is quite likely in that
event.
Iran now has decisive influence within the Shi'ite-dominated new Iraqi
government. The most influential figure in Iraq is Shi'ite spiritual
leader, Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani, the 75-year-old cleric born in Iran.
On January 16, after the new Iraqi government offered Sistani Iraqi
citizenship, he replied, "I was born Iranian and I will die Iranian."
That also gives Tehran significant leverage over political developments
in Iraq.
The Israeli options
Israel has been thrown into political crisis at just this time of
Iran's strident moves, with the removal of the old warrior, Ariel
Sharon, from the scene following his illness. Israeli elections will be
held on March 28 for a new government. Contenders include the current
acting prime minister, Ehud Olmert. Israeli media report that Bush has
decided to do what he can to try and ensure that Olmert, standing in
for the incapacitated Sharon, is elected to be full-time prime
minister. Rice has invited Olmert to visit Washington, probably some
time next month.
Other reports are that the vice president, we might say the "spiritual
leader" of the US hawks, Cheney, has been covertly aiding the Benjamin
Netanyahu candidacy as new head of the right-wing Likud. Netanyahu is
also directly tied to the indicted US Republican money-launderer, Jack
Abramoff, during the time Netanyahu was Sharon's finance minister.
Washington journalists report that Cheney, and his advisers David
Addington and John Hannah, are working behind the scenes to ensure that
former premier Netanyahu succeeds Olmert. Cheney is working to defeat
the more moderate Kadima Party formed by Sharon and his more moderate
ex-Likud allies.
Bush has not come out with direct vocal support for Olmert, but Olmert
has stressed that he will continue to work with America to realize a
Palestinian state. Israeli media report the new middle-of-the-road
(Israeli middle) party of Olmert and Sharon-Kadima will probably win a
landslide - to the dismay of Cheney's and Karl Rove's Christian Right
and the neo-conservative base.
According to the Palestine newspaper, al-Manar, the Bush administration
is conducting secret contacts with the Palestinian Authority and Arab
countries in an effort to have them help strengthen Olmert's stature.
The US reportedly informed them that it was interested in having Olmert
head Kadima and "continue the process that Sharon began to solve the
Palestinian-Israel conflict".
The paper further reports that Washington feels that Olmert is a "smart
leader who will be able, with his advisors, to lead the peace process
and rebuff the political machinations against him".
The Bush White House even informed Olmert, according to the paper, that
it would like him to keep Sharon's advisors on his team, especially Dov
Weisglass and Shimon Peres. Weisglass, Sharon's personal lawyer and
broker of ties to Washington, recently said he was in almost daily
contact with Rice.
On January 22, Olmert addressed the issue of Iran. According to Israeli
State Radio, he said Iran was trying to engage Israel in the conflict
surrounding Tehran's ongoing nuclear enrichment efforts, and that he
concurred with Sharon's position that Israel would not lead the battle
against Iran. He said that "responsibility falls first and foremost on
the United States, Germany, France and the Security Council. We do not
have to be the leaders".
By contrast, his defense minister, Shaul Mofaz, stated Israel would not
tolerate Iran achieving nuclear independence, a statement that analysts
feel signals a military action by Jerusalem is possible, with or
without official US sanction.
This all would indicate that there is a definite split within Israel
between a future Olmert government not eager to launch a preemptive
military strike on Iran's nuclear facilities versus the ever-hawkish,
neo-conservative-tied Netanyahu. Notably, prominent Washington
neo-conservative, Kenneth Timmerman, told Israeli radio in mid-January
that he expected an Israeli preemptive strike on Iran "within the next
60 days", ie just after Israeli elections or just before.
Timmerman is close to Richard Perle, the indicted Cheney chief of
staff, Lewis "Scooter" Libby, Douglas Feith and Michael Ledeen.
The question is whether ordinary Israelis are war weary, whether with
Palestine or with Iran, and seek a compromise solution. Polls seem to
indicate so. However, the very strong showing of Hamas in the January
25 Palestine elections could change the Israeli mood. The day after
their vote success, Hamas leader Mahmud al-Zahhar claimed that his
movement would not change its covenant calling for the destruction of
Israel, reported the Israeli online news portal Ynet.
Last week, a new element appeared in the chemistry of the long-standing
Israeli Likud-US Congress influence nexus. Larry A Franklin, a former
Pentagon Iran analyst and close friend of leading Pentagon
neo-conservatives, was sentenced to 12 years and seven months in jail
for sharing classified Pentagon information with pro-Israel lobbyists
through an influential Washington-based lobby organization, AIPAC, the
American-Israel Public Affairs Committee.
AIPAC has been at the heart of ties between the Israeli right-wing
Likud and members of the US Congress for years. It is regarded as so
powerful that it is able to decide which Congressmen are elected or
re-elected. Previously it had been considered "untouchable". That is no
longer true it seems.
Franklin pleaded guilty last October to sharing the information with
AIPAC lobbyists and Israeli diplomat, Naor Gilon. Steve Rosen and Keith
Weissman, who were fired from AIPAC in 2004 in the affair, are facing
charges of disclosing confidential information to Israel, apparently
about Iran. The sentencing is causing major shock waves throughout
leading US Jewish organizations, including the Anti-Defamation League
of B'nai Brith. The conviction has hit a vital lobbying tool of AIPAC
and other pro-Israel lobby groups, namely, expenses-paid trips for US
Congressmen to Israel. Hundreds of politicians are taken to Israel
every year by non-profit affiliates of groups such as AIPAC and the
American Jewish Committee - trips Jewish leaders say are a vital tool
in pro-Israel lobbying.
The Bush administration had tried to bury the Franklin case,
unsuccessfully. It could only delay the trial until after the November
2004 US elections. The Franklin scandal as well as the Abramoff
lobbying affair have both hit severe blows to the suspicious money
network between Likud and the White House, potentially fatally
weakening the Israeli hawk faction of Netanyahu.
The Russian factor in Iran
The role of Putin's Russia in the unfolding Iran showdown is central.
In geopolitical terms, one must not forget that Russia is the ultimate
"prize" or endgame in the more than decade-long US strategy of
controlling Eurasia and preventing any possible rival from emerging to
challenge US hegemony.
Russian engineers and technical advisers are in Iran constructing the
Bushehr nuclear plant, involving at least 300 Russian technicians. Iran
has been a strategic cooperation partner of the Putin government in
terms of opposing US-United Kingdom designs for control of Caspian oil.
Iran has been a major purchaser of Russian military hardware since the
collapse of the Soviet Union, in addition to buying Russian nuclear
technology and expertise.
In March, Iran-Russia relations took a qualitative shift closer when
Moscow agreed to the sale of a "defensive" missile system to Tehran,
worth up to $7 billion when taking future defense contracts into
account. In 2000, Putin had announced Russia would no longer continue
to abide by a secret US-Russia agreement to ban Russian weapons sales
to Iran that the government of Boris Yeltsin had concluded. Since then,
Russian-Iranian relations have become more entwined, to put it mildly.
Moscow currently says it is in talks with Iran to build five to seven
additional nuclear power reactors on the Bushehr site after completion
of the present reactor. Russia expects to get up to $10 billion from
the planned larger Bushehr reactors deal and additional arms sales to
Iran.
It is currently building the reactor on credit to be paid by Iran only
after the completion of the project. Sanctions and admonitions will not
change Russia's relationship with one of the most demonized states in
America's "axis of evil". Iran has become a major counterweight for
Moscow in the geopolitical game for Washington's total domination over
Eurasia, and Putin is shrewdly aware of that potential.
A look at the map will reveal how geopolitically strategic Iran is for
Russia, as well as for Israel and the US. Iran controls the strategic
Strait of Hormuz, the choke point for oil from the Persian Gulf to
Japan and the rest of the world. Iran borders the oil-rich Caspian Sea.
Significantly, on January 23, the Russian daily Kommersant reported
that Armenia, sandwiched between Iran and Georgia, had agreed to sell a
45% control of its Iran-Armenia gas pipeline to Russia's Gazprom. The
Russian daily added, "If Russia takes over this Iran-Armenia pipeline,
Russia will be able to control transit of Iranian gas to Georgia,
Ukraine and Europe."
That would be a major blow to the series of Washington operations to
insert US-friendly pro-North Atlantic Treaty Organization governments
in Georgia as well as Ukraine. It would also bind Iran and Russian
energy relations. While the Armenian government denies it has agreed,
negotiations continue, with Gazprom holding out the prospect of
demanding double the price or $110 per 1,000 cubic meters rather than
the present $54 unless Armenia agree to sell the stake to Gazprom.
Russia is pursuing a complex strategy regarding its cooperation with
Iran. Minatom, the Russian nuclear energy group, announced some time
back that Russia was in discussion with Tehran to increase Iran's
nuclear capacity by 6,000 megawatts by 2020. The Russian Ministry of
Foreign Affairs confirmed a year ago that Moscow would supply Iran with
fuel for the Bushehr reactor, even if it did not sign the IAEA
Additional Protocols.
While Putin has assured the world that Iran must demonstrate full NPT
compliance before the Russian nuclear transfers occur, the Russian
Foreign Ministry stated previously that the IAEA's failure to condemn
Iran opened the door for Russia to help build future reactors in that
country.
Putin has managed to put Russia square in the middle of the present
global showdown over Iran, a position which clearly tells some in
Moscow that Russia is indeed again a global player. Undoubtedly more.
Russian Defense Minister Sergei Ivanov, in a January 18 discussion with
the daily Nezavisimaya Gazeta, stated: "It is not profitable for Russia
to impose sanctions on Iran, since we just recently signed an agreement
to sell them nearly $1 billion worth of medium-range anti-aircraft
weapons. These modern weapons are capable of hitting targets up to 25
kilometers away and will probably be used to defend various testing
sites in Iran. Therefore, if some attempt is made to strike at the
country and the deliveries from Russia are made quickly enough, we can
expect a strong response. In other words, Iran will be able to defend
itself."
Ivanov added a significant caveat: "However, if ballistic missiles are
used, then nuclear sites can be targeted effectively. We must not
forget that Russia has its experts working on some of these sites, and
is not interested in a military scenario, if only to protect them."
Russia's current strategy is to renew its earlier offer, rejected
initially by Tehran, to take the uranium fuel from Iran to Russia for
reprocessing - then returned to Iran for use in the country's reactors
- thus defusing the crisis significantly. Last Wednesday, Iran's top
nuclear negotiator, Ali Larijani, said that Tehran viewed Moscow's
offer as a "positive development", but no agreement has been reached
between the countries. Talks have continued over the specifics,
including Tehran's proposal to have China involved in the Russian
enrichment process.
After his meeting with Russian Security Council chief, Igor Ivanov,
Larijani told the media, "Our view of this offer is positive, and we
are trying to bring the positions of the sides closer." Further talks
come in February, after the planned emergency IAEA meeting of this
Thursday. Iran opposition groups claim the Russian talks are merely a
ploy to divide the West and buy more time. Larijani and Ivanov said in
a joint statement that Tehran's nuclear standoff must be resolved by
diplomatic efforts in the UN atomic watchdog agency.
The China factor in Iran
China, in its increasingly urgent search for secure long-term energy
supplies, especially oil and gas, has developed major economic ties
with Iran. It began in 2000, when Beijing invited Iranian president
Mohammed Khatami for a literal red carpet reception and discussion of
areas of energy and economic cooperation. Then in November 2004,
curiously at the occasion of the second Bush election victory, the
relation took a major shift as China signed huge oil and gas deals with
Tehran.
The two countries signed a preliminary agreement worth potentially $70
billion to $100 billion. Under the terms, China will purchase Iranian
oil and gas and help develop the Yadavaran oil field, near the Iraqi
border. That same year, China agreed to buy $20 billion in liquefied
natural gas from Iran over a quarter-century.
Iran's oil minister stated at the time, "Japan is our number one energy
importer for historical reasons ... but we would like to give
preference to exports to China." In return, China has become a major
exporter of manufactured goods to Iran, including computer systems,
household appliances and cars. In addition, Beijing has been one of the
largest suppliers of military technology to Tehran since the 1980s. The
Chinese arms trade has involved conventional, missile, nuclear and
chemical weapons. Outside Pakistan and North Korea, China's arms trade
with Iran has been more comprehensive and sustained than that with any
other country.
China has sold thousands of tanks, armored personnel vehicles and
artillery pieces, several hundred surface-to-air, air-to-air, cruise
and ballistic missiles as well as thousands of antitank missiles, more
than 100 fighter aircraft and dozens of small warships.
In addition, it is widely believed that China has assisted Iran in the
development of its ballistic and cruise missile production capability.
In addition, China has supplied Iran scientific expertise, technical
cooperation, technology transfers, production technologies, blueprints
and dual-use transfers.
In sum, Iran is more than a strategic partner for China. In the wake of
the US unilateral decision to go to war against Iraq, reports from
Chinese media indicated that the leadership in Beijing privately
realized its own long-term energy security was fundamentally at risk
under the aggressive new preemptive war strategy of Washington. China
began taking major steps to outflank or negate total US domination of
the world's major oil and gas resources. Iran has become a central part
of that strategy.
This underscores the Chinese demand that the Iran nuclear issue be
settled in the halls of the IAEA and not at the UN Security Council, as
Washington wishes. China would clearly threaten its veto were Iran to
be brought before the UN for sanctions.
EU relations with Iran
The EU is Iran's main trading partner concerning both imports and
exports. Clearly, they want to avoid a war with Iran and all that would
imply for the EU. The EU's balance of trade with Iran is negative due
to large imports of oil. Germany's new government under Chancellor
Angela Merkel has made a clear point of trying to reaffirm close ties
with Washington following the tense relations under former chancellor
Gerhard Schroeder, who openly opposed the Iraq war along with France's
Chirac in 2002 and 2003.
Chirac for his part is the subject of major controversy since he gave a
speech on January 19 in which he overturned the traditional French
nuclear doctrine of "no first strike" to say that were a terrorist
nation to attack France, he would consider even nuclear retaliation as
appropriate.
This declaration by a French president triggered an international
uproar. Whether it was French psychological warfare designed to
pressure Iran, or the reflection of a fundamental change in French
nuclear doctrine to one of preemptive strike or something similar, is
so far not clear. What is clear is that the Chirac government will not
stand in the way of a US decision to impose UN sanctions on Iran.
Whether that also holds for a US-sanctioned nuclear strike is not
clear.
The EU-3, whose negotiations diplomatically have so far produced no
results, are now moving toward some form of more effective action
against Iran's decision to proceed with reprocessing. The only problem
is that other than nuclear saber-rattling, the EU has few cards to
play. It needs Iranian energy. It is also aware of what it would mean
to have a war in Iran in terms of potential terror retaliations. The
EU, to put it mildly, is highly nervous and alarmed at the potential of
a US-Iran or Israel-US vs Iran military showdown.
The Bush administration role in Iran
Unlike the Iraq war buildup where it became clear to a shocked world
that the Bush administration was going to war regardless, Washington
with Iran has so far been willing to let the EU states take a
diplomatic lead, only stepping up pressure publicly on Iran in recent
weeks.
On January 19, the US repeated that neither it nor its European
partners wanted to return to the negotiating table with Iran. "The
international community is united in mistrusting Tehran with nuclear
technology," said Rice. "The time has come for a referral of Iran to
the UN Security Council." Rice's choice of the word "referral" was
deliberate. If Iran is only "reported" to the Security Council, debate
would lack legal weight. A formal "referral" is necessary if the
council is to impose any penalty, such as economic sanctions.
The neo-conservatives, although slightly lower profile in the second
Bush administration, are every bit as active, especially through
Cheney's office. They want a preemptive bombing strike on Iran's
nuclear sites. But whatever Cheney's office may be doing, officially,
the Bush administration is pursuing a markedly different approach than
it did in 2003, when its diplomacy was aimed at lining up allies for a
war. This time, US diplomats are seeking an international consensus on
how to proceed, or at least cultivating the impression of that.
Iraq and the deepening US disaster there has severely constrained
possible US options in Iran. In 2003, in the wake of the Iraqi
"victory", leading Washington neo-conservative hawks were vocally
calling on Bush to move on to Tehran after Saddam Hussein. Now, because
of the "bloody quagmire" in Iraq, the US is severely constrained from
moving unilaterally. With 140,000 troops tied down in Iraq, the US
military physically cannot support another invasion and occupation in
yet another country, let alone Iran.
Because of Iran's size, a ground invasion may require twice as many
troops as in Iraq, says Richard Russell, a Middle East specialist at
the National Defense University in Washington. While an air campaign
could take out Iran's air defenses, it could also trigger terrorism and
oil disruptions. Washington is internally split over the issue of a
successful nuclear strike against Iran,
The AIPAC and Abramoff impact Washington
Another little-appreciated new element in the US political chemistry
around the Bush White House are two devastating legal prosecutions that
have hit the heart of the black and grey money network between
Washington Republicans and the Israeli right-wing Likud.
Abramoff, the financial patron of several prominent Republicans,
including ex-House majority leader, Tom Delay, and Steve Rosen, the key
force behind AIPAC, were two of the most influential Jewish lobbyists
in Washington before legal scandals effectively ended their careers and
sent them scrambling to stay out of prison.
Abramoff has pleaded guilty to fraud, tax evasion and conspiracy
arising out of his work lobbying for Indian gambling casino interests.
That scandal could implicate far more Congressmen and even some in the
White House.
Rosen is fighting allegations that as chief strategist at AIPAC, he
received and passed classified national security information, received
from Pentagon aide Larry Franklin, to unauthorized parties. Perhaps it
is coincidence that two such high-profile damaging cases to the
lobbying power of right-wing Israeli hawk elements surface at the same
time, at just this time when war drums are pounding on Iran.
AIPAC's drama began on August 2004, when on the eve of the Republican
national convention, the Federal Bureau of Investigation raided the
organization's offices, looking for incriminating documents. A year
later, the US Attorney for the Eastern District of Virginia indicted
Rosen, by then AIPAC's director of foreign policy issues, and Keith
Weissman, who had been an AIPAC Iran analyst.
The government disclosed it had had the men under surveillance for more
than four years and alleged that they had received and passed along
classified information. The indictment named Franklin as their
co-conspirator. Franklin, who has agreed to cooperate with prosecutors,
pleaded guilty in October to passing classified documents to
unauthorized persons and improperly storing such documents in his home.
He was sentenced to 12-and-a-half years in prison last week.
Bush, as de facto head of his party, faces a potentially devastating
November Congressional election. With the quagmire of Iraq continuing
and more Americans asking what in fact they are dying for in Iraq, if
not oil, Bush's popularity has continued to plunge. He has now only 46%
of popular support. More than 53% of people have expressed an
unfavorable opinion of Bush. The Hurricane Kartina debacle of bungled
responses by the White House, the growing perception that Bush has
"lied" to the public, all are working to seriously undermine Republican
chances in November.
The stench of insider deals, not only with Cheney's Halliburton, is
growing stronger and getting major media coverage, which is new.
Conservative traditional Republicans are outraged at the unprecedented
federal spending binge Bush Republicans have indulged in to protect
their own special interests.
In a recent article Michael Reagan, conservative son of the late
president Ronald Reagan, wrote, "Republican congressional leaders
promised individual members of Congress up to $14 million 'in free
earmarks' special spending allocations if they would support, which
they did, the massive $286.5 billion Bush transportation bill."
According to Reagan: "The bill came to a total of 6,300 earmarked
projects costing the taxpayers $24 billion, a clear case of bribery.
The people being bribed were members of Congress. The people making the
bribes were members of Congress. Congressmen bribing congressmen."
A recent Fox News poll indicated that Americans saw the Republican
congressional majority as materially more corrupt and more responsible
for the current spate of scandals than the Democrats by a wide margin.
Conplan 8022
In January 2003, Bush signed a classified presidential directive,
Conplan 8022-02. This is a war plan different from all prior in that it
posits "no ground troops". It was specifically drafted to deal with
"imminent" threats from states such as North Korea and Iran.
Unlike the warplan for Iraq, a conventional one, which required
coordinated preparation of air, ground and sea forces before it could
be launched, a process of months, even years, Conplan 8022 called for a
highly concentrated strike combining bombing with electronic warfare
and cyberattacks to cripple an opponent's response-cutting electricity
in the country, jamming communications and hacking computer networks.
Conplan 8022 explicitly includes a nuclear option, specially configured
earth-penetrating "mini" nukes to hit underground sites such as Iran's.
Last summer, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld approved a top secret
"Interim Global Strike Alert Order" directing around-the-clock military
readiness to be directed by the Omaha-based Strategic Command
(Stratcom), according to a report in the May 15 Washington Post.
Previously, ominously enough, Stratcom oversaw only the US nuclear
forces. In January 2003, Bush signed on to a definition of "full
spectrum global strike", which included precision nuclear as well as
conventional bombs, and space warfare. This was a follow-up to the
president's September 2002 National Security Strategy, which laid out
as US strategic doctrine a policy of "preemptive" wars.
The burning question is whether, with plunging popularity polls, a
coming national election, scandals and loss of influence, the Bush
White House might "think the unthinkable" and order a nuclear
preemptive global strike on Iran before the November elections, perhaps
early after the March 28 Israeli elections.
Some Pentagon analysts have suggested that the entire US strategy
towards Iran, unlike with Iraq, is rather a carefully orchestrated
escalation of psychological pressure and bluff to force Iran to back
down. It seems clear, especially in light of the strategic threat Iran
faces from US or Israeli forces on its borders after 2003, that Iran is
not likely to back down from its clear plans to develop full nuclear
fuel cycle capacities, and with it the option of developing an Iranian
nuclear capability.
The question then is, what will Washington do? The fundamental change
in US defense doctrine since 2001, from a posture of defense to
offense, has significantly lowered the threshold of nuclear war,
perhaps even of a global nuclear conflagration.
Geopolitical risks of nuclear war
The latest Iranian agreement to reopen talks with Moscow on Russian
spent fuel reprocessing has taken some of the edge off of the crisis
for the moment. On Friday, Bush announced publicly that he backed the
Russian compromise, along with China and ElBaradei of the IAEA. Bush
signaled a significant backdown, at least for the moment, stating, "The
Russians came up with the idea and I support it ... I do believe people
ought to be allowed to have civilian nuclear power."
At the same time, Rice's State Department expressed concern the
Russian-Iran talks were a stalling ploy by Tehran. Bush added.
"However, I don't believe that non-transparent sic regimes that
threaten the security of the world should be allowed to gain the
technologies necessary to make a weapon." The same day at Davos, Rice
told the World Economic Forum that Iran's nuclear program posed
"significant danger" and that Iran must be brought before the UN
Security Council. In short, Washington is trying to appear "diplomatic"
while keeping all options open.
Should Iran be brought before the UN Security Council for violations of
the NPT and charges of developing weapons of mass destruction, it seems
quite probable that Russia and China will veto imposing sanctions, such
as an economic embargo on Iran, for the reasons stated above. The
timetable for that is likely some time about March-May, that is, after
a new Israeli government is in place.
At that point there are several possible outcomes.
The IAEA refers Iran to the UN Security Council, which proposes
increased monitoring of the reprocessing facilities for weapons
producing while avoiding sanctions. In essence, Iran would be allowed
to develop its full fuel cycle nuclear program and its sovereignty is
respected, so long as it respects NPT and IAEA conditions. This is
unlikely for the reasons stated above.
Iran, like India and Pakistan, is permitted to develop a small arsenal
of nuclear weapons as a deterrent to the growing military threat in its
area posed by the US from Afghanistan to Iraq to the Emirates, as well
as by Israel's nuclear force.
The West extends new offers of economic cooperation in the development
of Iran's oil and gas infrastructure and Iran is slowly welcomed into
the community of the World Trade Organization and cooperation with the
West. A new government in Israel pursues a peace policy in Palestine
and with Syria, and a new regional relaxation of tensions opens the way
for huge new economic development in the entire Middle East region,
Iran included. The mullahs in Iran slowly loose influence. This
scenario, desirable as it is, is extremely unlikely in the present
circumstances.
Bush, on the urging of Cheney, Rumsfeld and the neo-conservative hawks,
decides to activate Conplan 8022, an air attack bombing of Iran's
presumed nuclear sites, including, for the first time since 1945, with
deployment of nuclear weapons. No ground troops are used and it is
proclaimed a swift surgical "success" by the formidable Pentagon
propaganda machine. Iran, prepared for such a possibility, launches a
calculated counter-strike using techniques of guerrilla war or
"asymmetrical warfare" against US and NATO targets around the world.
The Iran response includes activating trained cells within Lebanon's
Hezbollah; it includes activating considerable Iranian assets within
Iraq, potentially in de facto alliance with the Sunni resistance there
targeting the 135,000 remaining US troops and civilian personnel.
Iran's asymmetrical response also includes stepping up informal ties to
the powerful Hamas within Palestine to win them to a Holy War against
the US-Israel "Great Satan" Alliance.
Israel faces unprecedented terror and sabotage attacks from every side
and from within its territory from sleeper cells of Arab Israelis. Iran
activates trained sleeper terror cells in the Ras Tanura center of
Saudi oil refining and shipping. The Eastern province of Saudi Arabia
around Ras Tanura contains a disenfranchised Shi'ite minority, which
has historically been denied the fruits of the immense Saudi oil
wealth. There are some 2 million Shi'ite Muslims in Saudi Arabia.
Shi'ites do most of the manual work in the Saudi oilfields, making up
40% of Aramco's workforce.
Iran declares an immediate embargo of deliveries of its 4 million
barrels of oil a day. It threatens to sink a large oil super-tanker in
the narrows of the Strait of Hormuz, choking off 40% of all world oil
flows, if the world does not join it against the US-Israeli action.
The strait has two 1-mile-wide channels for marine traffic, separated
by a 2-mile-wide buffer zone, and is the only sea passage to the open
ocean for much of OPEC oil. It is Saudi Arabia's main export route.
Iran is a vast, strategically central expanse of land, more than double
the land area of France and Germany combined, with well over 70 million
people and one of the fastest population growth rates in the world. It
is well prepared for a new Holy War. Its mountainous terrain makes any
thought of a US ground occupation inconceivable at a time the Pentagon
is having problems retaining its present force to maintain the Iraq and
Afghanistan occupations. World War III begins in a series of
miscalculations and disruptions. The Pentagon's awesome war machine,
"total spectrum dominance" is powerless against the growing
"asymmetrical war" assaults around the globe.
Clear from a reading of their public statements and their press, the
Iranian government knows well what cards its holds and what not in this
global game of thermonuclear chicken.
Were the Bush-Cheney-Rumsfeld axis to risk launching a nuclear strike
on Iran, given the geopolitical context, it would mark a point of no
return in international relations. Even with sagging popularity, the
White House knows this. The danger of the initial strategy of
preemptive wars is that, as now, when someone like Iran calls the US
bluff with a formidable response potential, the US is left with little
option but to launch the unthinkable - nuclear strike.
There are saner voices within the US political establishment, such as
former National Security Council heads, Brent Scowcroft or even
Zbigniew Brzezinski, who clearly understand the deadly logic of Bush's
and the Pentagon hawks' preemptive posture. The question is whether
their faction within the US power establishment today is powerful
enough to do to Bush and Cheney what was done to Richard Nixon when his
exercise of presidential power got out of hand.
It is useful to keep in mind that even were Iran to possess nuclear
missiles, the strike range would not reach the territory of the US.
Israel would be the closest potential target. A US preemptive nuclear
strike to defend Israel would raise the issue of what the military
agreements between Tel Aviv and Washington actually encompass, a
subject neither the Bush administration nor its predecessors have seen
fit to inform the American public about.
F William Engdahl, author of A Century of War: Anglo-American Oil
Politics and the New World Order, Pluto Press, can be contacted via his
website, www.engdahl.oilgeopolitics.net.
:: The incoming address of this article is :
http://www.iraq-war.ru/article/78368
:: The views expressed in this article are the sole responsibility of
the author and do not necessarily reflect those of SiberNews Media .
.
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Uncle Wally 's World War III Dogalog...........01/02/06 AD (The Year of Our Lord) |
01 Feb 2006 04:06:48 PM |
|
|
Oh well demean dehumanise and demonise, and then attack, oh well many
an Empire has floundered playing with Persia.
Let the lesson begin.
LB
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Tugboat Captain" |
|
| Title: It's been a tough day... |
01 Feb 2006 02:44:10 PM |
|
|
at work. Snow and hard labour. Your post is too long for me tonight,
but: Why do you want the end so much?
.
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
UNCLE WALLY 'S WORLD WAR III NEWZ FILEZ....Wednesday, August 15th, 2007 A.D.
Uncle Wally 's World War III **NEWZ**Service....29/4/7
UNCLE WALLY 'S WORLD WAR III NEWZ...12/6/7** Iran will trigger all-out regional war if attacked,
UNCLE WALLY 'S WORLD WAR III NEWZ COMPENDIUM.....Sunday, February 4th, 2007 AD.....Up to 135 die in massive Baghad market bombing
FROM THE UNCLE WALLY WORLD WAR III ARCHIVES.........
Uncle Wally 's World War III ALMANAC......25/11/6.....Russia sends air defense system to Iran
Uncle Wally 's World War III COMPENDIUM -- Crossfire War - Turkey Warns U.S. on Violations of Air Space....27/6/7
UNCLE WALLY 'S WORLD WAR III NEWZ COMPENDIUM .... 22/1/8
| UNCLE WALLY 'S WORLD WAR III NEWZ...22/6/7...Hamas leader warns Israel not to attack
Uncle Wally 's World War III **NEWZ** Thursday, November 23rd, 2006 AD...The killing of Pierre Gemayel, a Lebanese minister hostile to Syria, may have broader geopolitical consequences
UNCLE WALLY 'S WORLD WAR III NEWZ FILEZ ....16/12/7
UNCLE WALLY 'S WORLD WAR III COMPENDIUM -- Wednesday, November 7th, 2007
UNCLE WALLY 'S WORLD WAR III COMPENDIUM....21/8/7
UNCLE WALLY 'S WORLD WAR III NEWZ COMPENDIUM ..... Sat, Jan 19, 2008
Uncle Wally 's World War III COMPENDIUM ~ HOOROO ~!!
|
|
|
